9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Nepal. At the time of export, the mode of payment was yet to be decided between the parties. However, in the contract, the mode of payment was stated to be Indian currency. The appellant exported the goods after payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 33,64,590/-. Subsequently, it is stated that the Government of Nepal agreed to make payment in foreign currency. Though Letter of Credit was opened in the name of the appellant for payment in Indian currency, the payment was.received in freely convertible currency in $ US. 3. The exports were made by the appellant during the period 4-5-2001 to 29-6-2001. During this period, Notification No. 51/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-1994 and Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority to consider whether the benefit of Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.) is available to the appellant. After fresh adjudication, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim on two grounds (i) that the Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.) is dated 26-6-2001 and that few of the invoices regarding exports were prior to the issue of this notification, (ii) as per notification, it is mandatory to execute bond in regard to the duty of the goods exported. That appellant has not fulfilled this condition. Aggrieved by rejection of claim, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order upheld the same. The appellant is thus in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It is not in dispute that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt submitted that the contention of the Revenue that few invoices were prior to the date of Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. is without basis. He pointed out that Notification No. 51/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-94 is pari materia with Notification No. 45/2001-C.E. (N.T.). Both these notifications would cover the period of exports. 6. The decision rendered by the Tribunal in CCE, Ludhiana v. Vardhman Spinning & General Mills - 2008 (229) E.L.T. 99 (Tri. - Del.) is also placed before us. The Tribunal therein followed the principle laid by the Apex Court in Share Medical Care v. Union of India - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). Hon'ble Supreme Court in Share Medical Care case has held that that even if the assessee does not claim benefit under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
